Category: Gun Rights

The ATF Have Been Running Guns Since 2008

Man the hole keeps getting deeper for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms an Explosives (ATF). First they are caught providing guns to Mexican drug cartels and now documents have surfaced that the ATF has been doing this since 2008:

Multiple sources now tell CBS News the questionable tactics were used in more than one operation, and date back as far as 2008 in the Tucson area. One case was called “Wide Receiver.”

Sources tell CBS News licensed gun dealers often wanted no part of selling to suspicious characters who could be supplying the cartels.

But, sources say, ATF enlisted the gun dealers as paid Confidential Informants and encouraged them to sell even more.

“ATF has asked me to assist in an official investigation,” reads one agreement.

Gun salesmen closed the deals, and ATF watched and listened with recording devices.

Your tax dollars and government at work. It angers me to no end having to support an organization that is not only trying to restrict my rights but is also providing criminals with firearms while they claim they prevent exactly that. I think it’s obvious to anybody with cognitive capabilities that the ATF needs to be abolished.

In the Absence of Guns

Anti-gunners are often fond of claims that eliminating guns will reduce violence crime. Of course that assumes there are no other weapons which as Egypt demonstrates isn’t the case:

“Hundreds of men carrying knives and swords entered Tahrir,” the AFP news agency quoted a report on Egypt’s state TV as saying.

The TV channel showed footage of hundreds of people involved in a stand-off and throwing stones at each other.

“A group of gangsters attacked us with stones, they seemed to be wanting us to leave the square,” Gamal Hussein, one of the pro-democracy protester, later told Reuters.

In the absence of guns the only thing that is guaranteed is the lawful and innocent are disarmed when the bad guys come with weapons.

Why Are Anti-Gunners Still Using These Argument

So the BBC has a writeup on America’s liberalization (term used in the classical sense not modern sense) of gun laws. Obviously being the BBC they give more time to anti-gunners such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

“They’re hell-bound to try and put guns in schools,” he says of Mr Gould and his Republican colleagues.

“If they’re successful in my opinion at some point in the future there’s going to be a ‘Gunfight at OK Corral’ in some classroom.”

Emphasis mine. Anti-gunners have been claiming there will be “blood in the streets” since right to carry laws started being enacted. The problem comes from the fact this still hasn’t happened and we’ve had right to carry laws for quite some time now. Continued use of this argument is a side effect of the fact anti-gunners have no argument to stand on. They’ve been proven wrong time and time again yet are so scared of inanimate objects with triggers that they refuse face reality and admit they are wrong.

I’m still baffled at the fact that anti-gunners don’t get the fact that criminals ignore laws. Saying a place is a gun free zone doesn’t stop shootings as noted by school shootings. The best thing we can do is give people a fighting chance and that can only be done by allowing them equal force to the criminals.

Of course Brady Campaign shill Colin Goddard has some input on the subject at hand:

He says he’s not opposed to the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, but he doesn’t like the idea of concealed weapons, especially on campus.

“That is not a right, that is a privilege that we grant to certain people who meet certain requirements,” he says. “And I’m saying those requirements are very low.”

Of course he mentions the United States Constitution:

“The second amendment is the only amendment with the word ‘regulated’ in it. And I’d say that’s there for a reason.”

The Second Amendment states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Notice that regulated appears in relation to the militia but there is a comma which delineates a separation of thought. The amendment then says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed means what it states. Another thing Mr. Collins completely ignored is the Arizona constitution which is covered in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) article:

Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

No mention of “well regulated” even appears in Arizona’s Constitution. Too bad so sad Mr. Brady shill. Until you anti-gunners can demonstrate a gun control law actually preventing murders your argument is completely irrelevant due to the fact we can demonstrate liberalized gun laws haven’t increase violent crime rates.

New Made Up Term, Assault Clips

I wish I could make up terminology just like the anti-gunners. Take the following e-mail released by the Brady Campaign (yeah they’re still around):

Yup they’re calling standard capacity magazines “assault clips” now. First off I don’t know how well a 32 round clip is going to work. Most clips hold between 5 and 10 rounds because pushing more into a magazine is a bitch. Hell Looking at the M-14 Army manual they have a section on how to use clips to load magazines and none of them are all that easy.

Wait, now I’m confused because the e-mail says the Tuscon shooter used “high capacity ammunition magazines” but the Brady Campaign is calling for a ban on “assault clips.” Wow… if you’re going to call for a ban on something at least call for a ban on the thing you claim a bad person used.

My favorite part about a magazine ban is the fact law enforcement and military are exempt. Combine that with this quote from the e-mail:

The only people who want to shoot 32 bullets in 16 seconds are the last people who should.

I’m inclined to agree. I don’t think the police or military should have this type of firepower available to them. Therefore I’m making a decree that all magazines of an arbitrarily large size should be clearly stamped “For Civilian Use Only.” Since the police and military are exempt from the magazine ban bill they must want to shoot 32 bullets in 16 seconds and thus, according to the Brady Campaign, are the last people who should be able to.

And Then There Were Four

Wyoming has now become the fourth state in the United States to remove government interference from the right to self defense. Governor Mead signed the constitutional carry bill meaning you no longer need a permit in order to carry a firearm, in any fashion, in the state of Wyoming.

Only 46 more states to go.

EDIT 2011-03-03 11:03: Apparently my math is not great. There are 46 remaining states, not 56. Counting is hard. Also thanks Vicki for pointing that out.

A Heart Warming Story

Some stories just warm my heart and this is one of them:

Today in Austin TX – Activists were successful in buying TRUNKS full of usable firearms that would have otherwise been destroyed (or ended up in the hands of “terrorists” – as we have seen before how cops confiscate guns and resell them to cartels…)

About 40 gun buyers, both independent and otherwise, stood in front of the Austin Police Gun Buyback Event offering CASH for the guns they were about to turn in to the city for food cards. As people rolled up, we approached them with our offers, and paid them hard cash after inspecting the guns to make sure they were operable. (the Police were unbelievably cooperative in the process)

It doesn’t look like the Bureau of Happiness and Joy Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has decided to go after these people yet for “being in the business.” Maybe this could be a new source of discount firearms for use enthusiasts, head to the next buy confiscation and offer the same price as the police (maybe a bit more) but in good old cash. That way somebody who will do something productive with the firearm can get it instead of the state whom will destroy it (unless it’s sufficiently valuable then it will probably disappear into the gun safe of a Sargent somewhere).

Double Standards

Slow news days get you pointless speculations and inane rambles of a libertarian. This posts is the latter. One thing that has always pissed me off is hypocrisy. Nothing is quite as awesome as somebody who claims to believe one thing and then does the exact opposite but tells everybody else they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. There are more subtle forms of hypocrisy such as that perpetrated by the likes of former Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, and President Obama.

Let’s take a look at a specific example for which I’ll put the laser on Mayor Bloomberg. Bloomberg is the chief of the purposely deceptively named organizations Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The name is truthful though as the organizations wants nothing more than to make all guns illegal and thus eliminate gun ownership in the United States. Thankfully their success rate has been less than optimal and thus haven’t managed to establish any gun bans.

Bloomberg wants you and me disarmed. He has no exceptions carved out for those who wish to have firearms available for self-defense because we’re just little peasants that don’t deserve to have a fighting chance should somebody with evil intent decide to enter our lives. While he’s spouting how evil guns are and how we need to disarm lawful citizens he stands surrounded by armed body guards. This is certainly a form of hypocrisy, decrying the use of something while in turn using it. Some people fail to see this because they’ve been taught that government officials are better than any of us little people and thus are deserving of special treatment.

This attitude has to end. I strongly believe government shouldn’t be allowed to do anything we the people aren’t allowed to do. If I can’t walk around with hired body guards then my government officials shouldn’t be able to either (depending on the state you’re in you may be able to hire private body guards). If I’m not allowed to own a Glock 17 with 33 round magazines then nobody employed by the government should be allowed to either. The second a law is passed that bars private citizens from something but carves out an exception of military or law enforcement there exists hypocrisy. This is even more apparent when you realize the police force is made up of regular civilians like you and me, they are not somehow elevated above that position because of their uniform.

Another example of government hypocrisy is the debt faced by both our federal government and most (all?) state governments. We’re told time and time again that we need to start living within our means while our governments spend far more money than they have available to them. Why is it OK for them to spend billions of dollars they don’t have without punishment but when we do it there are ramifications?

It would please me greatly if people would open their eyes and demand an end of such hypocrite behavior by government officials.

Revocation Rate of Minnesota Carry Permits

An interesting post over on the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) website has been published. It’s a listing of the revocation rate of carry permits in Minnesota. I figured it would be low but I didn’t realize how laws it was:

2006: 37,000 permits held, 3 revoked, .0081%
2007: 46,000 permits held, 0 revoked, 0%
2008: 53,000 permits held, 4 revoked, .0075%
2009: 63,000 permits held, 1 revoked. .0016%

Revocation of a carry permit can occur for several reasons included improper use of a carry firearm (outside of self-defense situations for example) or a change in status from an eligible gun owner to an ineligible person. Minnesota’s rate is far less than one percent which goes to show most permit holders are law abiding citizens who continue to remain law abiding even after they receive a carry permit (so much for that whole “blood in the streets” argument the anti-gunners like to parrot).

I Don’t Think That Argument Will Work

Today is logical fallacy day. This is a day where the logical arguments made by anti-gunners are brought to light. First we had Josh Horowitz claiming the gun confiscations in New Orleans were a conspiracy theory that never happened and now we have another idiot spouting off statements that are quite questionable. Arma Borealis called out a local (to me) Minnesota anti-gunner for the following statement (I’ll not link directly to the anti-gunner post as I have a strict policy against doing exactly that):

I give you the argument of the guys with the “man pants” on ladies and gentlemen-” We’re saying that we’d rather have more gun deaths and lower overall violent crime, than zero gun deaths and higher rates of violent crime if given the choice” And there you have it. Nothing more to say here except “Wow” and “unbelievable”

See an increase in violent crime is perfectly OK so long as guns aren’t used. If more women are raped that’s OK so long as there are less gun related deaths. If more people are murdered it’s OK so long as those murders were committed with weapons besides guns. The main thing needed according to these people is lowering gun related deaths at any cost including lives. I’m apologize for the fact I lack the cognitive dissonance required to make this argument seem like it makes sense.

It’s also interesting that I’ve found somebody who appears to be my opposite right here in my own state. I’d certainly enjoy a debate on guns with this person but it would likely devolve into her inserting fingers into her ears and yelling “LA LA LA” at the stop of her lungs until I left.